Tampico v. Martinez, 987 F.3d 387

July 24, 1998: College Station police, with FBI Officer Angel Martinez, arrested Jonathan Tampico and seized numerous items from his residence after observing child pornography; federal warrant later issued and FBI took custody of ~200 items.
February 14, 2000: Tampico convicted on several child‑pornography counts; criminal forfeiture charge dismissed; conviction became final on November 1, 2004 after appellate proceedings.
May 11, 2009: Tampico filed a Rule 41(g) Return of Property motion; the district court denied it as moot and indicated it did not possess his property (Tampico says he did not receive that order).
November 4, 2011: Tampico’s representative inspected property; some items were returned but Officer Martinez authorized destruction of the remainder; FBI disposed of remaining items by August 16, 2012.
October 29, 2017: Tampico sued Officer Martinez individually seeking Bivens damages for alleged illegal seizure and equitable return of property under federal jurisdiction, and $1 million in damages.
The district court converted Martinez’s dismissal motion to summary judgment and granted it, holding Tampico’s equitable claim barred by the six‑year limit and his Bivens claim barred by the two‑year limitations period; Tampico appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Accrual/timeliness of equitable claim for return of property	Tampico: accrual occurred Nov 4, 2011 (inspection/release) or 2009 41(g) filing makes suit timely	Martinez/U.S.: accrual occurred July 24, 2003 (five years after seizure); 6‑year statute under 28 U.S.C. §2401(a) applies	Court: accrual was July 24, 2003; equitable claim barred by §2401(a) (filed Oct 29, 2017)
Timeliness of Bivens (constitutional damages) claim	Tampico: (implicitly) claim timely based on later events	Martinez: Texas two‑year limitation applies; Tampico knew of injury earlier	Court: Bivens claim time‑barred under two‑year state limitation (even using Nov 4, 2011 accrual would be untimely)
Request for appointed counsel	Tampico sought appointed counsel as indigent litigant	Martinez opposed; appointment not automatic—requires exceptional circumstances	Court: denied appointment; no exceptional circumstances (case not complex; Tampico adequately litigated)

Bailey v. United States, 508 F.3d 736 (5th Cir. 2007) (accrual rule for return‑of‑property actions; plaintiff accrues when aware of injury and who caused it)
Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254 (5th Cir. 1993) (accrual standard: cause of action accrues when plaintiff knows or should know of injury)
Polanco v. U.S. Drug Enf't Admin., 158 F.3d 647 (2d Cir. 1998) (in nonforfeiture seizures, claim accrues when government’s forfeiture limitations period ends)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1971) (implied damages action against federal officers for constitutional violations)
Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793 (5th Cir. 2015) (no automatic right to appointed counsel in civil rights suits; appointment only for exceptional circumstances)
Parker v. Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190 (5th Cir. 1992) (factors to consider when deciding whether to appoint counsel in civil cases)